Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC
| Decision Date | 07 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 11–1192,11–1193.,s. 11–1192 |
| Citation | 687 F.3d 583,83 Fed.R.Serv.3d 246 |
| Parties | Jeffrey MARCUS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, f/k/a Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC; Bridgestone Corporation Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, f/k/a Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC; Bridgestone Corporation, Appellants (No. 11–1192) BMW of North America, LLC, Appellant (No. 11–1193). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Hugh R. Whiting, Esq., [Argued], Dustin B. Rawlin, Esq., Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Counsel for Appellant, Bridgestone Corporation.
Susan T. Dwyer, Esq., Herrick Feinstein LLP, New York, NY, Ronald J. Levine, Esq., David R. King, Esq., Herrick Feinstein LLP, Princeton, NJ, Counsel for Appellant, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC.
Rosemary J. Bruno, Esq., Christopher J. Dalton, Esq., [Argued], Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, Newark, NJ, Counsel for Appellant, BMW of North America, LLC.
Karin E. Fisch, Esq., [Argued], Orin Kurtz, Esq., Abbe, Spanier, Rodd & Abrams LLP, New York, NY, Alan E. Sash, Esq., Steven J. Hyman, Esq., McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Appellee, Jeffrey Marcus.
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
This class action involves run-flat tires (“RFTs”). As their name suggests, they can “run” while “flat.” Even if an RFT suffers a total and abrupt loss of air pressure from a puncture or other road damage, the vehicle it is on remains stable and can continue driving for 50 to 150 miles at a speed of up to 50 miles per hour.
Jeffrey Marcus leased a BMW convertible equipped with four Bridgestone RFTs. Unfortunately, he experienced four “flat” tires during his three-year lease. In each case, the RFT worked as intended. Even though the tire lost air pressure, Marcus was able to drive his car to a BMW dealer to have the tire replaced. Unsatisfied nonetheless, Marcus sued Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (“BATO”) (together “Bridgestone”), and BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW”), asserting consumer fraud, breach of warranty, and breach of contract claims. Among other things, he claims that Bridgestone RFTs are “defective” because they: (1) are “highly susceptible to flats, punctures and bubbles, and ... fail at a significantly higher rate than radial tires or other run-flat tires;” (2) cannot be repaired, only replaced, “in the event of a small puncture;” and (3) are “exorbitantly priced.” J.A. 91, 100, 102. He also claims RFT-equipped BMWs cannot be retrofitted to operate with conventional, non-run-flat tires, and that “many service stations do not sell” Bridgestone RFTs, making them difficult to replace. J.A. 91, 92. He faults BMW and Bridgestone for failing to disclose these “defects.”
The District Court certified Marcus's suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) as an opt-out class action brought on behalf of all purchasers and lessees of certain model-year BMWs equipped with Bridgestone RFTs sold or leased in New Jersey with tires that “have gone flat and been replaced.” For the reasons that follow, we part from the District Court. Among other problems, on the record before us, Marcus's claims do not satisfy the numerosity and predominance requirements. We thus vacate the District Court's certification order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In July 2007, Jeffrey Marcus (a New York resident) leased a 2007 BMW 328ci from an authorized BMW dealership in Ramsey, New Jersey. The convertible first caught his eye at another dealership in South Hampton, New York. He saw the car on the showroom floor and, interest piqued, picked up a brochure. Aside from visiting the dealership, picking up the brochure, and riding in a friend's 328ci as a passenger, Marcus claims he “absolutely [did] not” do any other research on BMW vehicles or RFTs before leasing his car. J.A. 875.
As noted, Marcus suffered four “flat” 1 tires during his three-year lease. Each time he experienced a flat, he drove his car to a BMW dealership in New York and had the tire replaced. BMW then billed Marcus between $350 to $390 for parts, labor, fees, and taxes. See J.A. 407–11. After his first flat, Marcus purchased a road-hazard warranty for about $400, which covered at least some of the replacement costs for flat tires two through four. See J.A. 880.
Marcus's first two flat tires were not available for inspection in this lawsuit. Dealer records show that a nail punctured the first tire and the second was replaced due to a “blown out bubble.” J.A. 407–08. Marcus's third tire was replaced because he ran over a chunk of metal “the size of a finger,” according to his own expert, and his fourth because he ran over another sharp object that tore and gouged the tire and damaged the sidewall. J.A. 300. The parties' experts agree that the third and fourth tires could not have been repaired, and that any tire (run-flat or conventional) would have been damaged, if not destroyed, under the circumstances. See J.A. 300, 414–15. They also agree on two other, more general propositions: (1) a tire can “go flat” or fail for a wide variety of reasons and not be a “defective” tire; and (2) to determine properly and accurately the cause of any particular tire failure, a careful and thorough examination of that tire is necessary. See J.A. 305, 399, 1476–77.
The parties dispute what Marcus knew about RFTs and RFT-equipped BMWs before leasing his car and, more importantly, what other purchasers and lessees could have known. To “provide a market and consumer perspective” on RFTs and BMWs, BMW presented the expert report and testimony of William Pettit. See J.A. 1761–76. He concluded that “[a]n abundance of [RFT] information exists in the public domain extolling the safety and convenience benefits and discussing potential downsides.” J.A. 1769. He pointed to BMW and Bridgestone documents ( e.g., their press releases and marketing brochures), as well as information from the public domain ( e.g., articles in publications like Consumer Reports, BusinessWeek, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times ).
To take but a few examples, BMW boasts in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Allergan Biocell Textured Breast Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.
...must satisfy the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of either Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3)." Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC , 687 F.3d 583, 590 (3d Cir. 2012). A class may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) when:(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impr......
-
Wragg v. Ortiz
...class satisfies the four requirements of Rule 23(a) : numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 590 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) ). If the court is satisfied that the requirements of Rule 23(a) have been met, it......
-
Avram v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.
...the warranty was broken and that the breach of warranty was the proximate cause of the loss sustained."), with Marcus v. BMW of N Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 601 n.8 (3d Cir. 2012) ("To state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, a plaintiff must allege (1) that a merch......
-
In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Nalaxone) Antitrust Litig.
...of a class action under Rule 23(a), and that the class fits within one of the Rule 23(b) categories. Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 591 (3d Cir. 2012). Although the plaintiff need not establish the merits of his case at this stage, the Third Circuit has held that "[a]n overlap ......
-
Third Circuit Rejects Effort At End Run Around The Ascertainability Requirement
...uniformly recognized that ascertainability is an implicit requirement for certifying a class. See, e.g., Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 592-94 (3d Cir. 2012); Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513-14 (7th Cir. 2006); Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co. (In re Initial Pub. Off......
-
The Third Circuit Distinguishes Between Types Of Class Actions For Purposes Of Its Ascertainability Analysis
...ascertainability finding at the class certification stage in class actions arising under Rule 23(b)(3) (See Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012); Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3,d 349 (3d Cir. 2013); Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013)), the Cour......
-
Third Circuit Emphasizes Distinction Between Ascertainability Analysis And Rule 23 Requirements
...ascertainability finding at the class certification stage in class actions arising under Rule 23(b)(3), (see Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012); Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3,d 349 (3d Cir. 2013); Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013)), the Cou......
-
NJ Appellate Division Refuses Ascertainability Analysis In 'Low-Value' Consumer Class Actions
...Supreme Court. While the ascertainability doctrine continues to develop in the Third Circuit (see e.g., Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012); Hayes v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3,d 349 (3d Cir. 2013); Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013); Byrd v. Aaron......
-
Mass Arbitration.
...a nationwide class based in part on differences in negligence law across jurisdictions). (71.) See, e.g., Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 592-94 (3d Cir. 2012) (joining other circuits by introducing an ascertainability requirement into the class-certification (72.) Cf, e.g., Gil......
-
Antitrust Class Certification Standards
...601, 607 (W.D. Wis. 2005). 13. See, e.g., Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, 806 F.3d 22, 24 (2d Cir. 2015); Marcus v. BWM of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 592-93 (3rd Cir. 2012) (“Many courts and commentators have recognized that an essential prerequisite of a class action, at least with respe......
-
Filing a Class Action
...at 502 (certifying defendant class pursuant to 23(b)(3) with respect to Sherman Act § 1 claims). 108. See Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 592-93 (3rd Cir. 2012) (“Many courts and commentators have recognized that an essential prerequisite of a class action, at least with respect......
-
Class Actions in the Year 2026: a Prognosis
...at 1, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Braun, 106 A.3d 656 (Pa. 2014).210. Id. at 6-7 (alterations in original) (citations omitted). 211. 687 F.3d 583, 592-94 (3d Cir. 2012).212. Id. at 593.213. Id. at 593, 612.214. Id. at 588.215. Id. at 594.216. 725 F.3d 349, 353 (3d Cir. 2013).217. Id. at 355-56......